Classical Values :: Devil or Angel?

Devil or Angel?

"A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for gay marriage."

So claims this website, citing this news report that as Alaska governor, she vetoed a bill "sought to block the state from giving public employee benefits such as health insurance to same-sex couples."

Thus, argues the site, "Sarah Palin's veto gave gays the same rights as married couples in Alaska," and "a vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for gay marriage."

What I can't figure out is whether the web site ("Sarah Palin Supports Gay Rights") is for her or against her.

Not that something like that would matter....

MORE: A number of people are claiming that Sarah Palin is anti gay, and they cite this Boston Globe piece as authority. And it appears that the Globe has her on record as being against state health benefits for same-sex partners:

In October of 2006, the Anchorage Daily News described Palin's positions on social issues in a lengthy profile:
"A significant part of Palin's base of support lies among social and Christian conservatives. Her positions on social issues emerged slowly during the campaign: on abortion (should be banned for anything other than saving the life of the mother), stem cell research (opposed), physician-assisted suicide (opposed), creationism (should be discussed in schools), state health benefits for same-sex partners (opposed, and supports a constitutional amendment to bar them)."

The problem is, the "lengthy profile" which is linked by the Boston Globe and others says nothing about same-sex marriage. (In fact, I can't find any of the language cited; I may be blind, but I read it three times.) Howard Friedman, though, says he found the story via Lexis, but he links a .pdf file (which looks like it came from a word processor) and it is completely different from the article at the Anchorage Daily News web site.

Once again, I'm wondering whether there are two completely different worlds -- Google and Lexis.

If (like me) you believe in "trust but verify," how do you know what story actually appeared in the newspaper? How is anyone supposed to verify anything?

I can only conclude that the following statement is probably true:

"She is against gay marriage although she did support equal access to benefits for same sex couples in Alaska."

Her reasons for supporting access to benefits may have been out of respect for the state constitution as opposed to her personal views -- so there may be two ways to read the word "support."

Perhaps she's one of those rare birds who does not allow her religious views to interfere with her legal duties. While I don't know enough about what she thinks (or why she thinks it) to render judgment, many voters would find such an approach refreshing in politics.

MORE: I keep reading the linked piece (which has two parts) looking for the language cited, and it just isn't there. Why would the Boston Globe and so many blogs be citing it? I find it hard to believe that none of them read it. Can it be that it was altered, and that the original only appears in Lexis?

I hate to sound like a nitpicker or a whiner, but seriously, how can I discuss a story if I don't know what the story is?

MORE: Are Obama's people trying to pass themselves off as anti-gay bigots? Commenter Mark astutely points out that the site I linked -- "Sarah Palin Supports Gay Rights" -- was checked out by LGF, and it appears that the IP numbers are the same as those of obamadefense.com -- which in turn redirects to the Obama campaign's FightTheSmears.com.

I smelled something funny, but it didn't occur to me that it was the Obama campaign, or that they'd be so blatant about it.

This isn't even disguised. (And what's with the purloined McCain logo at the top of the website?)

Puh-leeze!

MORE: Obamadefense.com no longer redirects to the Obama campaign's FightTheSmears.com.

Hmmm.....

Whatever is going on, it has the smell of skullduggery.

FWIW, sarahpalingayrights.com is registered at the GoDaddy.com proxy site. Which means it could be anyone.

Comments

I'm of the persuasion that government should be out of the 'providing health care' program to straight, gay, single, married or otherwise; government health care is an oxymoron and it is ridiculous defend.

It's more a matter of me being anti-serfdom rather than anything to do with sex.

The absurdity of it all is that even though I hate Serfdom, gay activist will decry me as a homophobe.

syn · August 30, 2008 12:59 PM

I read that it was her first veto as governor. She checked the AG for constutionality and decided it was constitutional. So she said it would be better to have the constitution amended but as it was, it is was correct for couples regardless of sex to get state benefits.

RAH tempest07@verizon.net · August 30, 2008 08:12 PM

Did you see where this anti-Palin / anti-gay site seems to be run by the same people as the Obama defense site?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31096_Obama_Campaign_Behind_Anti-Palin_Smear_Site

Mark · August 30, 2008 09:25 PM

Um, she didn't say Creationism should be taught in schools. She said it should be discussed.

M. Simon · September 3, 2008 03:50 AM